Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The issue with "casual" is that not everyone wants to restrict themselves. I see that a lot in my group. Oh, well.

Don't play against/as tournaments, unbound or eldar and its fine.

If you do any of those things you deserve this plague! But in serioiness it fixed SOME of assault phases previous problems so I enjoy it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The issue with "casual" is that not everyone wants to restrict themselves. I see that a lot in my group. Oh, well.

I think the problem comes when people's collection changes in power level without them buying anything new.

My friend has a ulthwe list and I have an iyanden list. He runs a large seer council, few tanks and aspects, and what few guardians he has are on jet bikes.
I run a lot of WG, WL, and WS.

In certain editions, his list was absurdly overpowered and could not be stopped.
In certain editions, my list was absurdly overpowered and could not be stopped.

I don't play my eldar all that much, and I don't want to collect more, but I've had to shelve them completely. My ability to run a 1850 game depends on me using 3 waveserpents, and now that is considered to be a little much. This isn't as bad when it's a new unit, like the riptide, but when an old unit gets upgraded...oh boy.

I'm so lucky I decided on Alpha Legion over Whitescars right now

That's why I own large armies of Eldar, Guard and Marines - there's always a playable army for whatever power level I want.

Lately, I've been playing a lot of Guard, because it's just been more fun to have regular men on the board. I do miss the all-conquering Eldar days in 3E & 4E.

 Crablezworth wrote:


But see, this is the problem, people can tell you nicely or in a condescending tone but your reaction will be the same, you feel judged because people don't enjoy what you enjoy. I can't dispute that you have fun playing maelstrom but I have no interest in playing maelstrom missions. We can ttoally agree to disagree, until someone makes the claim the maelstrom is "more tactical", I'll have disagreements with that.

I play since early 5-th and like 7-th. 5-th was my start and was fun but it had it's serious issues. Basically, every edition has it's issues from what i've seen so far. But for most people they boil down to codex ballance. Which is admittedly good in 7-th so far.

 Crablezworth wrote:

gruntl wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

I think we can all agree that when you find out the individual whose experience in 7th has been positive has only ever played 7th, it causes a bit of a chuckle, these people aren't lying(at least I'll take them at their word), but they may have been the one to play exclusively apoc had they played during 5th. It's difficult to wade through the fan boy exuberance but the second someone tells me maelstrom is "more tactical" I know I've found someone I don't particularly want to play.

Could you be a little bit more condescending perhaps?

But see, this is the problem, people can tell you nicely or in a condescending tone but your reaction will be the same, you feel judged because people don't enjoy what you enjoy. I can't dispute that you have fun playing maelstrom but I have no interest in playing maelstrom missions. We can ttoally agree to disagree, until someone makes the claim the maelstrom is "more tactical", I'll have disagreements with that.

No, I would not have reacted the same way. As I said, I'm not at all annoyed at people enjoying different things from me, or disagreeing with me. My issue with your post is about how you communicate, not what you communicate. I don't particularly agree with what JohnHwangDD thinks about wound allocation, but I'm not at all annoyed at his responses. If anything I think they are great because he specifies what he thinks is the problem.

Of course we can agree to disagree, but I'm actually interested in knowing more details on why you think maelstrom missions are so bad.

gruntl wrote:
I'm actually interested in knowing more details on why you think maelstrom missions are so bad.

Its an entirely random mechanic, with random mechanics inside them, on top of a game already over burdened by unnecessary random tables.

First of all, your mission cards are random. Some of them you may not be able to complete at all. Some of them may be worlds more difficult to complete than what your opponent drew. If that wasn't bad enough, several cards have random VP rewards. As in, I could theoretically complete 4 of these objectives with D3 VP and roll super low on each for a total of 4. My opponent could complete 2 of the same objectives and roll really well, beating me by 1-2 VP. Its absurd.

When you factor in everything else that's random pre-game and during (warlord traits, psychic powers) that can have varying degrees of relevance - again because of the randomness - the control you have as a player in determining the game's outcomes is greatly reduced.

People say its 'tactical' because you have to react to a changing scenario. There's nothing tactical about drawing an objective in the opposite corner, while your opponent draws one that they're six inches from. There is absolutely zero tactical elements in that; its purely reactive and random. Tactical would involve decision making; if the cards could be chosen, or pre-determined prior to the game, or at the half way mark, or just something that gives the player a choice, then I might see some sort of tactical element.

As it stands, the concept of asymmetrical mission is a good one. Its dynamic and allows for armies to play to their strengths or counter those of the other army. Maelstrom took that idea, and executed it in a poor fashion. There's no player choice in the objectives. Its just random.

If you enjoy random events determining the outcome of your game, then Maelstrom is for you. The only thing I'll credit Maelstrom with doing is encouraging more movement than standard games, but even that's a stretch.

After playing since Rogue Trader I am completely exhausted with "New Rules". I have played RT, 2nd, 4th, 6th and now 7th. My opinion, 6th was a mess and 7th is a train wreck. What do I like about 7th? snap fire, vehicle hull points, what don't I like about it? Everything else. Having your armies units mechanics completely change from one edition to the next, is very frustrating and it seems, is done is the spirit of selling new models. (BTW, Centurion, Dreadknight, the Dark Angel land speeder and the flying boxes are horrible looking, silly, models). LOS broken, area terrain is gone, invisibility is ridiculous, Shrike attacking with a Str 4 weapon? Maelstrom cards, stupid etc etc.

Play 4th edition, go on ebay and pick up all the codexes for cheap and enjoy fun, friendly games.

To those Tournament guys, I only played one once (tournament) but I feel for you, with this pile of garbage that is 7th edition.

Fanboys, I know Ill get stomped for daring to dis GW new rules, however Im just giving a veterans opinion.

wulfbrigade wrote:
After playing since Rogue Trader I am completely exhausted with "New Rules". I have played RT, 2nd, 4th, 6th and now 7th. My opinion, 6th was a mess and 7th is a train wreck. Play 4th edition, go on ebay and pick up all the codexes for cheap and enjoy fun, friendly games.

Fanboys, I know Ill get stomped for daring to dis GW new rules, however Im just giving a veterans opinion.

If you like 4th, you may want to look at picking up a 5th Edition rulebook, as 5th addresses a number of rules questions from 4th, while still playing similarly.

I like the perspective of guys who've played in RT and 2E - a lot of the new kids don't know what things were like back then, how 1500 pts was a huge game that took forever.

Indeed. I started in Rogue Trader. many of the newer/younger players dont understand the fun that we had back in the early days of 40k and how/why we love the fluff so much. Because we grew up with it as a part of our lives. overall, it is why many of us old timers accept each edition on it's own merits. preferring some over others in different aspects for different reasons but always loving the hobby itself.

I enjoy it, pew pew pew pew

Few people play the more broken stuff where I play so its all good.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Indeed. I started in Rogue Trader. many of the newer/younger players dont understand the fun that we had back in the early days of 40k and how/why we love the fluff so much. Because we grew up with it as a part of our lives. overall, it is why many of us old timers accept each edition on it's own merits. preferring some over others in different aspects for different reasons but always loving the hobby itself.

The RT/2E approach to Fluff was very different than what we have in 6E/7E. Lot more detail and storytelling back then, but games took roughly 3x as long as they do today - 750 pts of 7E models takes as long as a 1850 pt 7E game.

3E trimmed things back a lot, but you could play 1500 pts of 7E models in the time it takes for a 1250 pt 7E game. And they were still providing drawn & painted artwork.

In 7E, it's all pictures of the actual models, where everything's a catalog of stuff to buy. No imagination.

gruntl wrote:
I don't particularly agree with what JohnHwangDD thinks about wound allocation, but I'm not at all annoyed at his responses. If anything I think they are great because he specifies what he thinks is the problem.

Of course we can agree to disagree, but I'm actually interested in knowing more details on why you think maelstrom missions are so bad.

I only needed 4 cards to explain why. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/595167.page



In short

tac·ti·cal

ˈtaktək(ə)l/

adjective

of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.


Which is basically the opposite of maelstrom missions. Maelstrom is basically actions hastily taken with little forethought with no specific military end other than the drunk commissar on the other end of the line just really wants to see a sgt challenge plague marine champion, He's so drunk, he doesn't even care if the sgt wins the challenge. The cards take nothing into context, it'd be like sending your boys to destroy a bridge that doesn't exist and when that is discovered, I dunno, shoot a plane or a space wizard or something. Ask yourself this, what good would be playing a basic crusade mission (objectives) if at the end you justs rolled D3 vp for each objective?

I think the cards are salvageable but the current design isn't great. Blacksails said it well:

 Blacksails wrote:


As it stands, the concept of asymmetrical mission is a good one. Its dynamic and allows for armies to play to their strengths or counter those of the other army. Maelstrom took that idea, and executed it in a poor fashion. There's no player choice in the objectives. Its just random.

If you enjoy random events determining the outcome of your game, then Maelstrom is for you. The only thing I'll credit Maelstrom with doing is encouraging more movement than standard games, but even that's a stretch.

The movement thing will obviously depend on the cards drawn and the terrain layout.

I agree on maelstrom. Far too random for my tastes. Unless your army is super mobile like eldar or super lucky your done for.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Indeed. I started in Rogue Trader. many of the newer/younger players dont understand the fun that we had back in the early days of 40k and how/why we love the fluff so much. Because we grew up with it as a part of our lives. overall, it is why many of us old timers accept each edition on it's own merits. preferring some over others in different aspects for different reasons but always loving the hobby itself.

The RT/2E approach to Fluff was very different than what we have in 6E/7E. Lot more detail and storytelling back then, but games took roughly 3x as long as they do today - 750 pts of 7E models takes as long as a 1850 pt 7E game.

3E trimmed things back a lot, but you could play 1500 pts of 7E models in the time it takes for a 1250 pt 7E game. And they were still providing drawn & painted artwork.

In 7E, it's all pictures of the actual models, where everything's a catalog of stuff to buy. No imagination.

Some see it that way. Others see it as the ability to play the fluff like Rogue Trader with structure added.
I agree with the commercialism however. That is offset with the much greater variety and convertability of the models. I'm willing to flip past the adds and get what I want to create the units i want in ways I was not able to back in the 80s when I started playing.
I enjoyed taking the time to play a longer game just as I enjoy playing bigger games in the same time for different reasons.

 Crablezworth wrote:

In short

tac·ti·cal

ˈtaktək(ə)l/

adjective

of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end

I have never been in the military but I have always like this quote:

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." ~ Helmuth von Moltke, Field Marshal of the Prussian Army (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder)

I like the Maelstrom missions. Keeps the game dynamic for me, even if it is "random". Just a different way of playing. I think it somewhat captures the spirit of the quote above. If the "tactics" of the game all happened away from the table in a "carefully planned" way I think I would not like game as much. The more that happens as the game develops and changes, the better to me. It makes me think about things that are happening "now" rather than just grabbing the latest "net list", pressing the easy button, and smashing the face of my opponent.

Loborocket wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

In short

tac·ti·cal

ˈtaktək(ə)l/

adjective

of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end

I have never been in the military but I have always like this quote:

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." ~ Helmuth von Moltke, Field Marshal of the Prussian Army (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Helmuth_von_Moltke_the_Elder)

I like the Maelstrom missions. Keeps the game dynamic for me, even if it is "random". Just a different way of playing. I think it somewhat captures the spirit of the quote above. If the "tactics" of the game all happened away from the table in a "carefully planned" way I think I would not like game as much. The more that happens as the game develops and changes, the better to me. It makes me think about things that are happening "now" rather than just grabbing the latest "net list", pressing the easy button, and smashing the face of my opponent.

I've been in the military and mealstrom breaks my suspension of disbelief. Combat is not executed by a officer on the radio high on acid.
Reacting to random events is not tactical, its just reacting. Sure, there are some tactics involved in a game of 40k, but not enough for me. I need something beyond "go there and shoot this."
As another veteran from RT days, it was deeply flawed but it had a lot of soul. That soul isn't just dead now with 7th, it's come back as a one of those jerk ghosts that knocks vases off of tables and smells like rotten meat.

I believe the root of the issue is GWs business model. It goes something like this, "lets release a new ruleset every 3 years, we will change the stat line of basic troop models and make our new models rules, over the top, so people will want THOSE units in the army, instead of keeping the old ones" (Centurions, flying Tyranids, Flyers in general) Then we will charge a ridiculous amount of money for these rules"
The problems with this, it makes parents refuse to buy a game that costs $200, It alienates veteran players, (Player reading new rules: What do you mean my army doesn't even work close to the same way anymore!!?, i NEED TO BUY ________ TO HAVE A GOOD ARMY??). It makes the old rules sell like crazy on ebay and finally, it p&#@$ people off.

Here is what I propose, keep this edition as the FINAL edition, (even though its way too complicated) Release new PDF documents to update it. Make these OPTIONAL RULES. Sell more miniatures that don't suck. (Centurions, Taurus Transport, Vengeance LandSpeeder, Thunderwulf, these are ridiculous, terrible looking models, and the list goes on and on...)

Your welcome GW

End of Board meeting.

7th - still imperfect, has lots of problems, best edition yet.

Despite the organizational nightmare (and the Eldar codex) this is the most fun I've had playing 40k ever (in any edition).

wulfbrigade wrote:
I believe the root of the issue is GWs business model. It goes something like this, "lets release a new ruleset every 3 years, we will change the stat line of basic troop models and make our new models rules, over the top, so people will want THOSE units in the army, instead of keeping the old ones" (Centurions, flying Tyranids, Flyers in general) Then we will charge a ridiculous amount of money for these rules"
The problems with this, it makes parents refuse to buy a game that costs $200, It alienates veteran players, (Player reading new rules: What do you mean my army doesn't even work close to the same way anymore!!?, i NEED TO BUY ________ TO HAVE A GOOD ARMY??). It makes the old rules sell like crazy on ebay and finally, it p&#@$ people off.

Here is what I propose, keep this edition as the FINAL edition, (even though its way too complicated) Release new PDF documents to update it. Make these OPTIONAL RULES. Sell more miniatures that don't suck. (Centurions, Taurus Transport, Vengeance LandSpeeder, Thunderwulf, these are ridiculous, terrible looking models, and the list goes on and on...)

Your welcome GW

End of Board meeting.

They certainly have alienated veteran players, but also they keep out new players with bloat, complexity and pricing. It's not really a good combination to be doing.

I think this speaks for me:

Good advice, my 7th games would be much more fun with a nice bourbon on the rocks. Different spirit, but point taken.

wulfbrigade wrote:
Good advice, my 7th games would be much more fun with a nice bourbon on the rocks. Different spirit, but point taken.

Nice! ...usually we drink beer but I love 7th edition and I LOVE bourbon. ...at the moment I can't get enough Michter's bourbon.

I lost interest in playing 40k just after the 6th Tyranid codex was released. It took my favorite army and didn't fix any of the problems with the last codex, it just added to option to run some new units in a really cheesy way while leaving most of the codex borderline unusable. I picked up the 7th rule book and could barely muster the will to play games anymore, I have only played about five games of 7th and each one was maelstrom, which I think is one of the worst additions to the game since fliers. I played my latest game two nights ago and while I stomped the person I was playing against I just felt that the game wasn't any fun anymore.

To much power creep has made the game turn into a mess and when your basic troop serves no real purpose other than to fill in the mandatory slots on your force org, then what is the point?

Best edition by far.

Two major changes that vastly improved the game:

1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.

2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.


Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.

I think Maelstrom can add some tactical depth. Last time I played it, I was playing a SM demi company list. I had to pick where I wanted to be with regards to which cards I already had, which are already gone, and therefore, where I need to be close to. All in the face of the same questions for my opponents hand. While trying to whittle him down, and getting whittled myself. When most of your list moves 6" a turn, it can be quite tactical.

Throw in some ObSec jetbikes, though, and its just random.

That, and d3 VP. WTF, roll to see who wins after the game? Why not just 2vp?

Bharring wrote:I think Maelstrom can add some tactical depth. Last time I played it, I was playing a SM demi company list. I had to pick where I wanted to be with regards to which cards I already had, which are already gone, and therefore, where I need to be close to. All in the face of the same questions for my opponents hand. While trying to whittle him down, and getting whittled myself. When most of your list moves 6" a turn, it can be quite tactical.

Throw in some ObSec jetbikes, though, and its just random.

That, and d3 VP. WTF, roll to see who wins after the game? Why not just 2vp?

Agreed have you tried Cities of Death yet? ...it's even better and I personally like the objective cards more as well.

morgoth wrote:Best edition by far.

Two major changes that vastly improved the game:

1. Strength D has been brought in line with other weapons, with a crazy critical hit (6) effect but otherwise comparable damage output to the points cost.

2. Unbound has brought a solution to many problems, like allies, formations, dataslates, alternative detachments, Imperial Knights and a host of other bs that used to favor just one army over the others.


Of course it's going to take another five years for players to move outside of their comfort zone and actually enjoy those changes, but it's still brilliant.

I have to agree, if you are willing to fully jump in and embrace the changes; the folks that cling to old lists (tervigon-spam, razor-spam, etc) and thinking seem not to enjoy it as much. Leaving your 'comfort zone' is not something us nerds do easily haha.

I don't think it's an unwillingness to adapt. I think people for the most part, just don't like the new rules and don't find them fun.

I'm more than capable of adapting. I've adapted to four other game systems.

There's a difference between leaving a comfort zone, and throwing any semblance of structure out the window.

I have been "comfortable" with 40k from the beginning.
It is just other games systems are that much more fun and the "new" 40k takes a tiny bit more work.
The mind springs to "why bother".
I have the models, when GW wants to make something more fun to play I will be ready.